Content
86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A highly actionable, well-structured skill body: executable commands at every step, field-level output requirements, explicit read-only safety rules, and a real feedback loop for the most common failure mode. The only weaknesses are mild redundancy in the Step-3 tier_stats/pills guidance and the absence of an explicit scan-output validation checkpoint.
Suggestions
Merge the two overlapping Step-3 paragraphs about summary.tier_stats and pills rendering into one guidance block stating once: values must start with a parseable GB number (e.g. '约 27.8 GB'), caveats belong in blue-tier not the pills.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint after Step 1, e.g. 'check /tmp/storage_scan.json is valid JSON and system.disks is present before proceeding; if empty, re-run scan or investigate permissions' — this closes the workflow gap between scanning and analysis.
Trim template-implementation meta-commentary (e.g. '模板也会自动去掉这种冗余括号') from SKILL.md; the agent only needs the rule (write '约 14 GB', no '（估算）' suffix), not what the template does to violations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and imperative throughout ('扫描全程只读', '绝对禁止 rm、mv、rmdir'), assuming Claude's competence with no padding or explanations of known concepts. Minor tightening remains: the two Step-3 paragraphs on tier_stats/pills ('tier_stats 的 green / yellow / red 三个值都要以可解析的 GB 数字开头' and 'pills 只渲染解析出的纯数字…别加道歉式说明') overlap substantially, and some template meta-commentary ('模板也会自动去掉这种冗余括号') could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Fully executable end to end: 'python3 scripts/scan.py > /tmp/storage_scan.json', 'python3 scripts/server.py /tmp/storage_analysis.json', and the static build command are copy-paste ready, and per-tier requirements are field-level concrete ('trash_paths', 'app_paths', '至少 3 句处置路径'). The schema pointer ('schema 见 scripts/build_report.py 顶部注释') was verified to be a real, complete schema in that docstring. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 4-step sequence (扫描 → 分析分级 → 生成网页 → 对话摘要) is explicit with per-step outputs, and error recovery is present ('读不到的目录标 denied，需在报告里列出' and the missing-button troubleshooting item). It falls short of 5 because there is no explicit checkpoint validating the scan JSON or confirming the server started before reporting results; the workflow itself is read-only (deletion is user-confirmed in the browser), so the destructive-validation cap is not triggered. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear overview body with well-signaled, one-level-deep, platform-conditional references ('macOS 读 references/macos.md，Windows 读 references/windows.md'), both verified to exist and contain the promised per-OS layout guidance. Bulk detail (schema, safety model) is correctly deferred to script docstrings rather than inlined. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |